Special Edition: Political Violence & Division- Can We Come Together?

Summary

The NewsWorthy – Special Edition: Political Violence & Division: Can We Come Together?
Host: Erica Mandy
Guest: Lily Mason, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University SNF Agora Institute
Date: May 2, 2026

Episode Overview

This special edition of The NewsWorthy features an in-depth conversation between host Erica Mandy and political scientist Lily Mason. With America just a week removed from a historic third assassination attempt on President Trump and political violence at a 30-year high, the pair explore the deepening polarization in U.S. politics. They probe root causes of today's divisions, why Americans view the other side as a threat, the role of leaders and media, differences at the local level, and discuss realistic strategies to reduce hostility and rebuild democratic norms.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Current State of Political Violence and Polarization

• Statistical Landscape:
  • Lily Mason notes that although “over 80% of Americans think that it is never acceptable to use violence to achieve their political goals,” the share of those who think violence can sometimes be justified has risen sharply—from 7% in 2017 to as high as 20%, depending on the context. ([01:48])
  • While threats are way up across all levels (national to local officials), “the actual number of violent attacks that are political targets is still very, very low.”
  • Quote: “They're very vivid. We all pay attention and we notice them, but there's still a very low number of total events.” — Lily Mason ([02:38])

2. The Impact of Leadership and Rhetoric

• Influence of Political Leaders:
  • Americans are “very reactive to our leaders,” especially when those leaders normalize or encourage violent rhetoric.
  • Mason singles out Trump as a “unique president in terms of the way he speaks...especially talks about his political opponents,” often using “extremely divisive, sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric, such as enemies.” ([03:00])
  • Violent threats spike against individuals in conflict with Trump, notably federal judges who rule against him.
• Both Sides?:
  • While both parties have sharp rhetoric, Mason argues that Trump’s rhetoric is especially direct, mentioning “threatens to hang Democrats that don't agree with him,” pardons for January 6 insurrectionists, and sharing violent imagery online. ([04:17])

3. Media Incentives & The Spread of Extremism Online

• Viral Extremism:
  • The most extreme opinions dominate online platforms: “It's actually a really big incentive problem...both political leaders and media figures want attention.”
  • Psychological factors make people more likely to pay attention to conflict, further fueling divisiveness. ([05:47])
  • Quote: “We're really attuned psychologically to look for conflict...the incentives...are actually pushing us towards more conflict.” — Lily Mason ([06:30])

4. Politics as Identity

• Evolution of Partisanship:

  • Politics is now experienced less as policy preference and more like a core identity, cemented like “sports fans” with deep emotional stakes. ([06:50])
  • “Changing parties is similar to like a religious conversion at this point...it's quite rare.”
  • Since the 1950s, there has been “social sorting,” aligning party identity tightly with race, religion, and geography, making election outcomes feel existential for many Americans. ([08:03])

• Pros & Cons of Polarization:

  • 1950s: Lack of polarization meant no real choices.
  • Today: “It's very easy to tell the difference between the parties.” ([08:51])
  • Downside: Intense identity-based partisanship drives perceptions and voter choices.
  • Memorable Insight: Experiments show people prefer policies simply because their party supports them, often rationalizing choices after the fact. ([09:35])

5. Why Accountability and Engagement Are Faltering

• Erosion of Voter Accountability:
  • Most Americans no longer punish party leaders who act against their interest—“the other side is so much worse”—so they stick with their party. ([10:37])
  • Many disengage altogether rather than “holding someone to account by voting for their opponent.” For instance, in 2024, a significant number of Republicans left the presidential ballot blank. ([11:24])

6. Local Politics: Less Hostile, More Practical

• Key Differences with National Politics:
  • Polarization and threats have filtered down, but local issues are concrete and less ideological (e.g., fixing potholes, plowing snow).
  • Quote: “At the local level, we actually see the least polarization...the connection between your life and your vote on a local level is much easier to see.” — Lily Mason ([15:08])
  • The decline of local media is worsening polarization, as people rely more on national narrative-driven outlets.

7. Perceptions, Misunderstandings, & How to Bridge Divides

• Misperceptions about "The Other Side":
  • Americans massively overestimate the extremity and violence on the opposing side.
  • Quote: “We look at people on the other side and we just assume that they're all sort of radical partisans and that we're totally normal people.” ([17:46])
  • When provided accurate information, people dislike the other side less.
• Importance of Difficult Conversations:
  • Current turbulence is reminiscent of past eras (e.g., the 1960s): upheavals about social hierarchy, identity, and pluralism.
  • Progress demands “hard conversations” about who belongs and the evolving definition of American identity.

8. Strategies for Reducing Polarization

• Personal Actionable Advice:
  • Start dialogue with trusted friends and family.
  • Recognize geographic and social isolation from differing views; physically encountering diverse opinions is rare, making family gatherings “fraught.”
  • Model civility and dignity—norms break down when not actively upheld, especially as leaders increasingly flout them. ([19:34])
  • Quote: “To the extent that we want them to continue to exist, sort of norms of dignity and civility, we kind of have to model them ourselves.” — Lily Mason ([20:21])

9. Looking Forward to the Midterms

• Checks and Balances Under Strain:
  • The Trump presidency is pushing boundaries and eroding norms; future political health may depend on whether Americans demand a return to government accountability or continue down a path of cynicism and disengagement. ([21:16])
  • Quote: “We hold firm on rejecting rhetoric from our leaders that encourages violence.” ([22:21])

10. Final Note

• The U.S. has survived previous violent and polarized eras. Most Americans are not extremists or supportive of violence. The challenge will be resisting incentives for conflict and rebuilding trust and norms.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• On the rarity, yet vividness, of political violence:
  • “They're very vivid. We all pay attention...but there's still a very low number of total events.” — Lily Mason ([02:38])
• On Trump's rhetorical uniqueness:
  • “He threatens to hang Democrats that don't agree with him. He pardoned all of the people who were arrested on January 6th.” — Lily Mason ([04:17])
• On the psychological draw of conflict:
  • “We're really attuned psychologically to look for conflict… the incentives...are pushing us towards more conflict.” — Lily Mason ([06:30])
• On the shift from policy to identity:
  • “Changing parties is similar to like a religious conversion at this point, which is, you know, it happens, but it's quite rare.” — Lily Mason ([07:34])
• On local vs. national politics:
  • “At the local level, we actually see the least polarization...the connection between your life and your vote on a local level is much easier to see.” — Lily Mason ([15:08])
• On overestimating the other side’s extremity:
  • “We look at people on the other side and we just assume that they're all sort of radical partisans and that we're totally normal people.” — Lily Mason ([17:46])
• On the need to model good norms:
  • “We kind of have to model them ourselves...hold [loved ones] to account when we feel like they're behaving in a way that isn't characterized by the...dignity of American citizenship.” — Lily Mason ([20:21])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Start/Overview & Context — [00:00]
• Political Violence Statistics & Trends — [01:48–02:52]
• Role of Leadership & Trump’s Influence — [03:00–04:17]
• Media & Incentive Structures — [05:47–06:41]
• Identity Politics & Social Sorting — [06:50–08:46]
• Consequences for Accountability & Voting — [09:35–11:16]
• Local vs. National Political Dynamics — [15:03–17:34]
• Bridging the Divide: Misperceptions & Solutions — [17:46–21:00]
• Looking Ahead to the Midterms — [21:16–23:27]

---

Summary Takeaways

• Political violence is still rare but perceptions and threats are up, fueled by divisive leadership and online incentives.
• Partisanship is now a core identity, intensely tied to other aspects of self.
• Local politics remains less polarized, but is threatened as national narratives replace local media and priorities.
• Distrust and misunderstanding of “the other side” are rampant, but most Americans reject violence and extremity.
• Solutions include accurate information, local engagement, modeling civility, and resisting incentives that reward outrage.

This episode provides a nuanced, hopeful-yet-sober look at U.S. polarization, emphasizing that real change is possible—if individuals are willing to challenge norms, seek understanding, and hold leaders accountable for their rhetoric and actions.

Transcript

[A]

Today is Saturday, May 2nd. We're just one week removed from what authorities are calling the third assassination attempt on President Trump. And we've seen many more instances of political harassment, intimidation and actual violence even beyond the White House. Now, with midterms just six months away, we're taking a step back to consider how American politics got so polarized and intense. Why do so many people see the other side not just as wrong, but as a threat? And what can we do about it moving forward? Today you'll hear my conversation with Lily Mason. She's a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University's SNF Agora Institute, the author of Uncivil How Politics Became Our Identity and the co author of Radical American Mapping Violent Its Causes and the Consequences for Democracy Today. She explains how most Americans actually feel about political violence. We also talk about the role of political leaders and media in making divisions worse, what's often different at the local level, and how our willingness to accept or reject new norms could help shape the future. Welcome to THE NEWSWORTHY Special EDITION Saturday when we sit down with a different expert or celebrity every Saturday to talk about something in the news. Don't forget to tune in every Monday through Friday for our regular episodes where we provide all the day's news in less than 15 minutes. I'm Erica Mandy. It's now time for today's special edition Saturday. Lily Mason, thank you so much for joining us here on THE newsworthy.

[B]

I'm happy to be here.

[A]

So we're talking just a few days after an alleged third assassination attempt on President Trump. It certainly wasn't the first incident of recent political violence. You know, we just reported on new data that antigovernment violence is at a 30 year high. What do you think's going on at this time in our country in terms of political violence and polarization?

[B]

So I've been measuring attitudes about political violence in the American electorate since 2017. And I think the first thing and most important thing to say is that overall most people, the overwhelming majority of people, do not think that political violence is acceptable. Over 80% of Americans think that it is never acceptable to use violence to achieve their political goals. But there have been increasing numbers. You know, in 2017, we had about 7% of Americans who thought that it could be sometimes acceptable to use violence. And that has gone up to 20% depending on the political context. We've also seen a huge increase in the number of violent threats that people have been receiving. So from members of Congress all the way down to, like local government Officials, state government officials. The number of threats they've been receiving have been really skyrocketing. Luckily, the actual number of violent attacks that are political targets is still very, very low. And so these are, like, really high salience events. They're very vivid. We all pay attention and we notice them, but there's still a very low number of total events.

[A]

Does the number of threats speak to just the intensity of polarization compared to how it used to be?

[B]

Yeah. So I think the number of threats relates to a couple of things. The first is that we are very reactive to our leaders. Like, we listen to what our leaders are telling us, and if our leaders are kind of suggesting or even explicitly saying that, you know, that violence is sometimes okay, then often we'll listen and we'll say, like, okay, well, that's the new norm, then I believe that violence is okay. We do know that Donald Trump is a pretty unique president in terms of the way he speaks and the way he especially talks about his political opponents. He's much more targeted and often uses extremely divisive, sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric, such as enemies. Enemies, right, exactly. And so we tend to see these spikes in violent threats against people who turn against Trump. So, like, starting when he was dealing with his indictments and then moving all the way through this second term, we saw spikes in threats against federal judges, and it was really only against federal judges who had ruled against Trump in some way. So the people that publicly conflict with Trump tend to be the people who are targeted with violent threats.

[A]

Right now the White House is saying it's actually Democrats rhetoric that has led to three assassination attempts on the president. Is it coming from both sides? What do you think about that?

[B]

Scholars have really looked at specifically Trump as a leader of a party who is just famous for kind of both using more casual language and more intolerant language. He talks about Democrats as his enemies. He threatens to hang Democrats that don't agree with him. He pardoned all of the people who were arrested on January 6th who were arrested because they were engaged in violence. And so the signals that he's sending out are really very unique in American politics. One thing we've heard is people criticizing Democrats for having talked about Trump as a harmful leader or as a danger to our democracy. Those are not things that are directly related to violence. Right. The Trump administration sends out on Twitter images of them bombing boats in the ocean. And that's one of the things in the manifesto of the most recent attempted shooter. They send out images of ice in the streets that's not something you need Democrats to tell you about. But we also sort of have this political environment where we're all online. We're all, you know, a lot of us can be anonymous and our conversations online about politics are often full of a lot of conflict. People can be extremely mean. People can be insulting and cruel and call people names and be intolerant. And that spills over into the real world. If somebody is deeply online in a place where there's a lot of hatred and there's a lot of anger, sometimes they might pick up the phone and call somebody that they dislike and issue a threat to them. Most of the time they don't ever intend to harm that person. But those threats can still have really important real world effects.

[A]

And unfortunately, I think most people know by now that the most extreme opinions tend to get the most attention online and go viral.

[B]

Yeah, and that's, it's actually a really big incentive problem that we have both for our political leaders and for media coverage. Right. I mean, both political leaders and media figures want attention. That's the bread and butter of the game for both types of professions. And we as human beings pay a lot of attention to conflict. It's just a lot more kind of psychologically beneficial to us to really go focus on when something is going wrong rather than if something's going right. We can come back to it later. And so we're really attuned psychologically to look for conflict and we pay more attention and therefore we click on articles more and we listen longer to speeches. And so the incentives of the people who talk about politics the most, our political leaders and our media are actually pushing us towards more conflict.

[A]

Is there more and more of this idea that politics is identity more than just a preference?

[B]

Politics has been an identity identity for a long time. The way that we traditionally think of our partisanship is that it's like we're like bankers choosing a party to vote for. And we like think very clearly and we read all the policies that they're advocating and we make this sort of reasoned decision based on weighing all these different pros and cons and our own self interest and our own material well being. But actually we're much more like sports fans when we think about where we're, how we're voting and we have our favorite. We root for our team and when our team wins, we feel amazing. And when our team loses, we feel terrible. It's very connected to our emotions. It's very connected to our sense of our status in the world and where we belong and who likes us and who doesn't like us. But these are things that are very easy to take advantage of. And as our politics has become more rooted in conflict and hatred, our commitment to our side has gotten stronger and stronger. Changing parties is similar to like a religious conversion at this point, which is, you know, it happens, but it's quite rare. And the stickiness of our partisanship just sort of gets stronger and stronger.

[A]

And you said this identity based politics has been going on for a long time, but I'm also hearing that it has increased over time, that people are feeling that more than ever. Is that what you're saying?

[B]

Yeah, there's a process that I call social sorting, which is basically that in the 1950s and 60s, which party we voted for wasn't necessarily tightly connected to our other identities, like our racial identity or our religious identity. But now, sort of over many decades, what's happened is that our racial, religious, geographical identities have moved into alignment with our party identity. So that when we go into the voting booth, we're not just thinking about which party we want to win, but we're also thinking about which religion and racial group and geographic group. And all of these different parts of our sense of self concept and our part of our identity. All of those things get wrapped together now in the voting booth so that the stakes of the elections feel a lot higher.

[A]

What are the pros and cons of that type of society?

[B]

So in 1950, the American political Science association wrote a letter saying that the parties really needed to be more different from each other. That polarization would be good if we had a little bit of it. Because basically what they said was the parties are not offering voters any choice, they're just the same thing. And nobody knows why they would choose one party over the other. Obviously, we've now gone the other direction and it's very easy to tell the difference between the parties. I don't think anyone would argue anymore that there's no difference between candidates running for president.

[A]

Although it's interesting how we're seeing some of the more traditional ideologies sort of shift and that a lot of people are just adjusting their own beliefs to go along with whatever political party they want to continue following.

[B]

And there's. There are political science experiments where they randomly assign a party to a policy and people just always choose the policy that their party is attached to, even if it's something that's like, ideologically not consistent with what they believe. And then when we ask them afterwards, why did you choose this policy? Was it because it was your party's policy or because you truly like it? And everybody says it was because I like it. I'm not influenced by my party. And then we ask them, can you write a letter to the editor of your local paper and explain why this is a good policy? And they will do it. You can experimentally induce people to like a policy simply because their party's label is attached to it. You also ask these people, how many people do you think are influenced by their party? And they all say, everybody else is influenced by their party, but I'm not. When we sort of think of ourselves as purely independent thinkers, the vast majority of people are really influenced by what they wanting to be consistent with what their party thinks.

[A]

We're also all busy. And so there is a dependency to tell me what to believe, because I don't have time to think about all the nuances of that policy.

[B]

The reason we have representative democracy is that every single citizen does not have the time to read every page of legislation and decide what they personally think about it and then put in their vote. Right. We trust our representatives to go in and make the decision that represents us the best. And that's just the structure of democracy. The structure of democracy also includes us holding our representatives to account if they don't represent us well. The problem now is that we're seeing that that accountability is sort of disappearing, right? So that we're not willing to vote against our own party's candidate, even when they've made choices that have hurt us. We still think, yeah, but the other side is so much worse. And so I can't vote for that side.

[A]

There's an expectation, though, that we might see something really different in the midterm. So could that tide be turning maybe?

[B]

It's really hard for people to change their vote. I mean, I think it's a lot easier for people to not vote if they're feeling like they're unhappy with the leadership of their own party. I think most people who are unhappy with their own party kind of tend to just withdraw from politics. And that can really change the outcome of an election if the core voters of a party are not voting at all. One thing that we saw in 2024 was a real subset of Republicans voting for Republicans, but they were leaving the presidential line blank. About a quarter to a third of the Republican Party is really not a big fan of Donald Trump. And I think most often what we see is people kind of resisting engaging in politics at all rather than really holding someone to account by voting for their opponent.

[A]

Still ahead, why local politics are often less polarized and why it might not be so bad that local leaders are less famous. Plus what research shows we get wrong about the other side, and what can actually help us bridge divides even in an election year. That and more coming up. But first, a break for our sponsors. One of the easiest and most consistent parts of my kiddo's morning routine is taking his high at children's vitamins. He loves the taste and I honestly thought the novelty of it would wear off eventually. But we're years into this now and he's still loving and benefiting from the children's vitamins and probiotics. Of course, I appreciate that Haya's chewable vitamin is supporting his immune system, energy, brain function, and more. And I love that Haya earned Clean Label Project's Highest Purity Award certification and puts every batch of product through third party testing for heavy metals and contaminants in GMP compliant labs. Oh, and if getting your kids to eat vegetables feels like an impossible daily battle, Haya's New Kids Daily Greens plus Superfoods can be a game changer. It's basically chocolate milk stuffed with veggies. It's a greens powder designed specifically for kids that's packed with whole food sourced ingredients. Just mix one scoop with milk or milk alternative and watch them actually enjoy something that's secretly fueling their growing bodies. And we've worked out a special deal with Haya for their best selling children's vitamin receive 50% off your first order. To claim this deal you must go to hyahealth.comnewsworthy the deal is not available on their regular website, so go to H I Y A H E a l t h.com newsworthy and get your kids the full body nourishment they need to grow into healthy adults. The Newsworthy is also brought to you by Bolan Branch. I'll be honest, between work and family, some nights I don't get as much sleep as I really need. But I also know how important sleep is. It really affects everything. So when I do get in bed, I want to make sure I have the optimal setup for the best quality sleep possible. And bowl and Branch bedding is designed for exactly that kind of rest. From their signature organic cotton sheets to plush pillows, breathable blankets and temperature regulating comforters, everything is made to create a bed that truly supports good sleep. My husband and I both adore the Bolin Branch sheets. We have three pairs at this point and it's true that they get softer and softer with each wash. And we can really feel the difference between Bolan Branch and other sheets. So every time we're ready to upgrade another part of our bed, we are always turning to Bolen Branch. We already have their duvet and most recently a beautiful and cozy waffle blanket. So upgrade your sleep with boll branch. Get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com newsworthy with the code newsworthy. That's BolandBranch B O L L A N D branch.com newsworthy with the code Newsworthy to unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply. Okay, now back to my conversation with Lily Mason. What are you seeing on the local side when it comes to polarization and even political violence?

[B]

So on the local level, the negative is that we have seen an increase in violent threats against local government officials. But that's part of a process of sort of the national political environment filtering down to the local level. A lot of the time, those types of threats come from outside the district or outside the state. Right. So there are people who've sort of been paying attention to politics and they're mad at this one person they saw on the news, and they're not even the constituent of the person, and they will send a threat. But in general, at the local level, we actually see the least polarization. And that's partly because at the local level, we can see what's getting done. Local politics is fixing the pothole at the intersection in the middle of town. And if that pothole doesn't get fixed, it doesn't really matter who the person is or what party they're from. You just want that pothole to get fixed. So the connection between your life and your vote on a local level is much easier to see, and it's much harder for leaders to try to distract us and point us in other directions. The media in that place also talk about the local concerns. And so if you have local media, people are thinking about the pothole. They're thinking about their local high school sports teams. They're thinking about things that are happening locally that are not connected to national politics. And one thing we've actually seen, unfortunately, is that local media has been disappearing and is replaced for a lot of people by national media, which is the type of media that's really encouraging this conflict and hatred between partisans.

[A]

And I know research has been done showing that people aren't as familiar with their local leaders as they are with national leaders. And so what's the impact of just actually not having much knowledge about local politics.

[B]

Right. Most people don't really know who represents them unless they're really upset about something that needs to get done in their town. But I think the local officials actually, in comparison to national officials, they're actually doing a lot more hands on work. Right. At a local level, your elected officials have really hard jobs to do. They need to make sure the snow is plowed. It's their responsibility to make sure the snow is plowed as opposed to at the national level. We're sort of, you know, they're voting on things that are kind of amorphous and complicated and long. And so most of us, they can sort of talk about partisan stuff in a way that we can't tell whether or not they're doing it right. And it's easier to see when your elected officials have done a bad job at the local level. So there's no political personalities in a town. And in fact, if there were, that's probably a bad thing.

[A]

What can people realistically do and what does or doesn't actually help bridge divides if we want to be a little less polarized and extreme?

[B]

So the first thing is that most Americans are actually overestimating the extent to which the other side is extreme and different from them and violent, actually. So we look at people on the other side and we just assume that they're all sort of radical partisans and that we're totally normal people. And when you actually correct those views, if you tell them actually most people on the other side have this kind of moderate opinion on this policy, or most people on that side totally reject violence, they actually kind of take a step back and they dislike the other side less. So there's just an informational problem, which is we don't know as much about our political opponents as we probably should. It's important for us to have these conversations as a country. I think part of the reason that we disagree so much right now is that we're sort of seeing this. It almost harkens back to like the 1960s when we had civil rights legislation, we had the women's movement, we had all kinds of social upheaval and social progress. And that was honestly the last time when we also had like assassinations and riots and protests. And so we're sort of going through this process again where we're evaluating our social hierarchy. We're evaluating the sense of like, who belongs where in America and what our different group status is. We're talking about some really serious things that honestly we're not very good at talking about peacefully These are things that, normatively, we have to talk about in order to be part of a pluralistic democracy. And if we're gonna have a country where, you know, we have lots of different kinds of people and everybody counts as an American, these are the type of conversations we have to have.

[A]

How do we get through this, or how do we deal with these intense conversations that a lot of people believe are about humanity and morals and values?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really hard question.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But you start with the people that you know, and you start with the people that you're close to who can trust you. One of the. One of the reasons that. That we are able to think of our opponents as. As extreme and strange is that we actually don't come across them very often. So we're isolated from people we disagree with physically, and so we don't come in contact with people who are unlike us politically very often. So to the extent that this is why the Thanksgiving table is always so fraught, Right. It, like, brings people from different places all together into one room, and then they start having these political conversations. The way to deal with those political conversations, ideally, is to go into them with curiosity and to give the person credit for just being a normal human being with flaws and also good things. And so it can be really, really difficult. But I think it can also help just to not engage in the kind of vitriolic politics that we're all observing. Even people who are, you know, national political leaders now feel much more comfortable saying things that 20 years ago, people really wouldn't have tried to say. And so when we see more and more people breaking these norms, the norms themselves start to disappear. So to the extent that we want them to continue to exist, sort of norms of dignity and civility, we kind of have to model them ourselves and, you know, for the people that we know and love to hold them to account when we feel like they're behaving in a way that isn't characterized by the. What we think of as the dignity of American citizenship and participation in democracy.

[A]

Yeah. It's interesting because I've seen a couple of headlines where, like, kindness is coming back. This is what people want. We always see the pendulum swing back and forth, it seems. Anything else specifically about the next six months as we head into the midterms that you think people need to be thinking about when it comes to politics?

[B]

The first two years of the Trump administration have been relatively unprecedented in terms of not just norm violations, but also stepping outside the boundaries of what we think of as normal kind of checks and balances on the executive branch and what Congress's role is and what judges roles are. And the question is like, as we go forward, how important is that to people, right? Does the. Is this sort of era of, I think of it as like the Reagan era of like anti government sentiment? Does that actually recede if we start seeing what happens when our government disappears and the things that our government does for us become more visible because they're gone?

[A]

And just to end on what you brought up before, that most people don't want political violence and aren't as extreme as people might think.

[B]

The vast majority of us and in fact the number of violent actual events is very, very small. We're nowhere near a point where we just have this unending cycle of violence and retribution and retribution for that retribution. That's the place we want to make sure we never get to. There have been very violent eras of American politics certainly and this is not a unique period of time. I mean the classic example is the Civil War where ultimately the country had to be, you know, broke apart and fought itself. The post Reconstruction era was an extremely violent time. During the Vietnam War we had a lot of protests and a lot of people disagreeing with their government and disrupting the activities of government. It's something we seem to go through sort of periodically every few decades we bring ourselves back by saying this has gone too far and rejecting this type of politics. And we hold firm on rejecting rhetoric from our leaders that that encourages violence. And so the to the extent that we have people engaging in politics responsibly that that helps us along. Unfortunately, as I said before, the incentives go the other direction. Right. Our leaders incentives are to create conflict and to make us pay attention. And, and so they're going to keep trying to bring us back to that place. And the really difficult question is how, how Americans kind of resist that, that encouragement towards conflict and hatred and intolerance.

[A]

Thank you to our guest Lily Mason from Johns Hopkins University and the SNF Agora Institute. Check out her two books to learn more on this topic. Again, they are Uncivil Agreement How Politics Became Our Identity and Radical American Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes and the Consequences for Democracy. We'll link to them in today's episode notes over on theneworthy.com thank you so much for listening and being here today. Join us again during the week for daily news roundups in less than 15 minutes. We help to keep you informed without all the partisan pundits. So we'll be back on Monday with the latest news. Until then, have a great rest of your weekend.